What is the best '24mm equivalent' lens for the 8x10" format?

<p>Under $750.</p>

<p>Thank You.</p>

<p>If you crop a 2:3 aspect ratio to the 4:5 aspect ratio, then a 210mm lens on 8x10 is very close to the 24mm field of view on 35mm film. If you crop the other way around, then you need to be closer to a 150mm or 165mm lens.</p>

<p>None of the modern 150mm or 165mm lenses are likely to be sub $750... maybe the Nikkor SW 150mm if you're lucky. The mis-labeled Nikkor SW 150mm f/8 that sold on ebay recently for ~$650 was a steal. If you go back to an older lens, then a 165mm Angulon would probably be within your budget. I also think there's a Wollensack and a WA Dagor that would both cover the format.</p>

<p>For 210mm lenses, the lenses with big coverage (Super Angulon, Super Symmar) are out of your budget. If you can live with tight coverage, then I would look at the 210mm APO Sironar S or APO Sironar W (probably too much $$), the new 210mm Fuji CM-W or the old single coated Fuji 210mm W as also possibilities.</p>

<p>Personally for best value, I'd find the old single coated Fuji 210mm as likely to be the cheapest.</p>

<p>Very insightful. Thank You.</p>

<p>Years ago a 6" F6.3 Metrogon for aerial stuff for a 9x9 plate was used on 8x10 for amateur astro work; often with a lens cap or hat for a shutter; to record meteors</p>

<p>an 16cm or 160mm old angulon might be found<br>

the 650 buck limit means to get a modern short WA requires some good ebay fishing!</p>

<p>"coverage" can mean have  a criteria of illumination dropoff; and or resolution too. In the older mostly contact printing era ; illumination was once mostly the criteria. Thus with older lenses folks new to LF say today that they were spec'd wrong; or optimistically; when they were used differently. My grandfather shot with an 8x10 camera and contact printed; a lens that was down to 10 line pairs per mm in the far corners is still overkill for contact printing. Today folks say that this is terrible!; because folks enlarge.</p>

 

 

<p> <br>

Thus if you are contact printing; an old WA process lens; aerial lens; or oddball lens can be used for WA 8x10 stuff to  drop the cost radically; or a bit crazy a mix of almost a pinhole and part of a surplus lens. <br>

 </p>

 

<p>A 16.5cm F6.8 Dagor is an old lens for 8x10 WA but would be really low contrast; probably like my 1930's 12cm F6.8 Angulon that covers 5x7.   There are 180 and 210mm F6.8 Dagors too. All these trade at about 1/2 your price range; *BUT* the darn shutter might need a full CLA and you still have an old uncoated lens</p>

 

<p> <br>

The scary thing is the price of a center filter can exceed you spec!<br>

 <br>

There is also the  Wollensak 159mm lens; a tiny firecracker!</p>

<p>165</p>

<p>Wollensak series IIIA E.X.W.A f12.5 are one nice alternative</p>

<p>I have both the 165 Angulon and the 159 Wollensak EWA. I tested them against each other on an 8x10 and the Wolly won. The Angulon was very weak in the corners.</p>

<p>Weak in the corners for illumination or resolution?</p>

<p>Kelly, the corners were weak in resolution compared to the Wolly. Illumination was even. It now lives in the whole plate kit where it is fine.</p>

<p>Chauncey; how weak in resolution are we talking about? ie contact prints; a 2X say for a 16x20? or 3x?</p>

<p>For example for clarity of my question: a 127mm F4.7 Ektar is really a 3x4 cameras lens; but is on the majority of 4x5 press cameras. One here is tack sharp on axis about 85 line pairs per mm dead nuts on axis at F11. But at the far corners of a 4x5 frame; the worst of the 4 corners; worst of the tangential or radial data at F11 is only at 12 line pairs per mm. To a purist; this is terrible at the corners. For a contact print; it is overkill. Even with an 8x10 print the corners would be sharp; we have now roughly 6 line pairs per mm. With a 16x20 the corners will show; with a best case transfer one might approach 3 at the corners on the print.<br>

I mention all this because all my grandfathers 8x10 contact prints from the 1920's and 1930's are all SUPER tack sharp for railroad and bridge images; and one of his lenses was a wider angle Dagor.</p>

 

<p>I will be contact printing. Mostly Cyanotypes, Palladiums and Kallitypes.</p>

<p>Good, long rendition of tonal scale might be more important than acuity?</p>

<p>J D; with contact printing high resolving power is not needed; often a rough swag is say 5 to 10 line pairs per mm; I often use about 6 to 7 as my criteria. </p>

<p>I have a Wollensak ExWA as noted above and if I remember correctly, I paid only a couple hundred USD for it. I really should finish building my camera so I can use it ;)</p>

<p>Hello JD. I have both a Wollensak 159/9.5 (I understand it doesn't have quite the coverage of the f/12.5 version, though still reportedly can cover 8x10) and an Angulon 165/6.8 (recently CLA'd, definitely makes 8x10), both in working shutters and both available within your price range if you are interested. If so please contact me off forum and we can take this further as suits your desires.<br>

Best,<br>

Larry</p>